Quantized redshift anomaly

Well, Marmet talks about a spacecraft with an anomalous pull toward the Sun which he says is due to space dust. He talks about the spacecraft growing in size as it accretes the space dust. Also the comet they recently shot a copper ball at, threw up so much dust it hid the entire collision.

Jim
Asked
"Can you say anything about the density of intergalatic space(IGM) now that the hydrogen molecule has been observed there? Does the IGM now get more dense and if so by how much?"

I like to know also.

Happy New Year

Harry

Well, Paul Marmet says: 3.10 Implications on the Big Bang Model

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> In section 3.1, it is seen that an average concentration of about 10-2 particle cm-3 of gas is enough to produce a redshift that would be indistinguishable from the effect resulting from the Doppler shift attributed to the expansion of the universe. Such an average concentration of intergalactic gas is larger than usually accepted, although an almost similar concentration (103 cm-3) of gas has recently been reported (18) in some intergalactic clouds. However, the density accepted comes out of the hypothesis of a Doppler interpretation using Einstein's relativity. Such a calculation of the density of matter is space is irrelevant here, since it is based on the Doppler interpretation of the redshift, while the results obtained here are based on the energy lost due to interstellar gases which is a Non-Doppler interpretation. Therefore, the density calculated is erroneous if the universe is not expanding, as it seems to be. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The hydrogen molecule H2, composed of two H atoms, is, according to Marmet, transparent. It cannot be detected by normal means as the spectral lines are cancelled out by the pairing. This molecule is very stable. Atomic hydrogen, on the other hand, seks to join up with other atoms, and alone is not stable. It would seem to me that much if not most of the hydrogen in space would be of the molecular kind. It would appear to us like "dark matter."

What strikes me is that this data is not well known. Marmet implies that, if true, the standard cosmological model of expanding space is incorrect. This then constitutes a falsification of the standard model, and thus would be of paramont importance to researchers, in one way or the other.

I believe it was Einstein who said that we have to get out of the kind of thinking that got us into trouble to begin with if we want to get out of trouble. This means that the ultimate effective solutions will not be "on topic."

I also wonder about the predicted abundances, if there is a huge amount of hydrogen tied up in H2, which hasn't been included in the so called observed quantities, what does this newly found hydrogen do to the predicted values? I wonder who really got this one right...
<hr noshade size="1">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.


Paul Marmet and Grote Reber*,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics,
National Research Council, Ottawa, On. Canada K1A 0R6
&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;
Abstract. </center>

"An increasingly large number of observations consistently reveal the existence of a much larger amount of intergalactic matter than presently accepted. Radio signals coming from directions between galaxies is discussed. An average density of matter in space of about 0.01 atom/cm3 is derived. It is known that the density of matter is compatible with many reliable observations. These results lead to a nonexpanding cosmological universe."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Continued at www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Looking at Meta Research data as a start, I find the standard list of evidence not supporting the big bang. And indeed the redshift anomaly is mentioned. Not only mentioned, but the trick pointed out, that light has to be redshifted without scattering.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

by Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research


WHAT ELSE CAN CAUSE REDSHIFT?
If the redshift of galaxies is not due to expansion velocity, then what might cause the redshift? Over the years, a surprising number of proposals have been made. A recent summary article lists 20 non-velocity redshift mechanisms.14 Basically, anything that causes light to lose energy will cause it to redshift. The trick is to have an energy loss mechanism that doesn't scatter the light. The absence of observed scattering is the main objection to the so-called "tired light" theory, in which intergalactic matter is supposed to be responsible for the energy loss of light.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is intergalact matter what Marmet identifies as "H2" And what about this letter I found on my computer I believe from JMB concerning redshift

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Quantized redshifts
Mon Jan 9, 2006 23:50
80.170.1.234


People working on femtosecond laser pulses observe every day an annoying effect: the frequencies are redshifted! The explanation results from elementary spectroscopy: A parametric effect (parametric means space-coherent + no permanent excitation of the matter) transfers energy between electromagnetic beams refracted by a convenient medium, so that the hot beams (temperature from Planck's law) are redshifted, the cool (usually microwaves) are blueshifted.
Using the definition of "ultrashort electromagnetic pulses" given by G. L. Lamb in an old paper published in the "review of Modern physics", that is pulses "shorter than all relevant time constants", this effect applies to the pulses making the usual incoherent light, but Lamb's condition is hard with the nanosecond pulses: To observe in a lab with ordinary light, the effect named CREIL, a long multipath cell should be filled with neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P, or other strange gases.
A CREIL frequency shift appears very similar to a Doppler shift: It is coherent (no blurring of the images), a spectral line is shifted without a change of its width, the principles of thermodynamics are fulfilled, a time-incoherence of the light is needed (else it would be a genuine Doppler effect). A single difference: the relative frequency shift is only approximately constant; this is remarkable because the observed redshifts are not strictly constant (standard interpretation: a change of the fine structure constant ! ).
Applying the CREIL effect to the propagation of a continuous ("white"),far UV rich spectrum, lines appear, with relative frequency shifts having the periodicity 0.062. This periodicity corresponds to the redshifts which put the Lyman beta or gamma to the alpha z=3*0.062 and z=4*0.062 respectively.
This quantitative coincidence with the astrophysical observations shows that the largest part of the observed redshifts is produced by a CREIL effect in excited H I.

The CREIL effect in excited H I explains all anomalous frequency shifts by a search of hydrogen in states 2S or (and) 2P:
- The whole spectrum of the quasars, supposing they are micro-quasars in a cloud of hydrogen.
- The "Very Red objects", close to the quasars (Arp, ...)
- The "anomalous acceleration" of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes beyond 5 UA, where the solar wind condensates into excited hydrogen, in particular into metastable 2S. A transfer of energy from the solar light to the microwaves explains their blueshift.
- The same transfer of energy explains that the anisotropy of the "CMB" is bound to the ecliptic (that is to the corona of the Sun)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A lot of mystery from the past would evaporate if the Universe were not expanding. We would be left with the mysteries of the present.

Marmet writes"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So, that is two of twenty. How many will it take? What happened to the "all it takes is one" One exception and the absoluteness of the theory vanishes And now I find this from Marmet which kinda sums it up succiently

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> 8 - Conclusion.
Since we have seen that the normal chemical reaction in space strongly favors the recombination of H into H2 (and not the reverse), we must conclude that there has to be a large amount of H2 in space.
The high homogeneity of the 3 K radiation, the absolute need of having H2 in space and the absence of the hypothetical anisotropic radiation expected from the Big Bang, showing the non primeval origin of the background radiation observed from space, constitute an experimental proof that the Big Bang never happened. More complete arguments in favor of the Planck's radiation as the ultimate source of the 3 K radiation in the Universe were recently presented in international meeting. (Marmet 1994).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The sad part is that this evidence does not count in the game of science as it is played today. Does this worry anyone? Does it worry anyone that the very domain of knowledge that was to bring us an honest and truthful explanation of what is happening has become a matter of opinion of those whose opinions matter most. Someone has got to stop that. It is not right that science concedes it is inexact and uncertain, and then tells us with certainty what is happening. Con artists do that...


It doesn't make sense to extrapolate back to a supposed beginning, and then assume that evolution poroceeded from from that beginning back to now. It would make more sense to observe what is happening now,

Marmet makes another point, seemingly simple but rather significant. He explains that "gravity" did not exist until after electromagnetism. Think about it, mass first then gravity between mass. So, the very first principle upon cooling, whether it is galactic or particle, is an electromagnetic principle. THEN gravity has its say.

What this would mean is that the first quantum fluctuations to occur would not be gravitational, but electromagnetic. The radiation had to be electromagnetic to start with.

Tom writes:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But what really sells deductive reasoning is when you finally stumble onto a valid starting point and follow its unique deductive path. With startling quickness, everything drops neatly into place and starts to make good sense. Then the process itself teaches us new things we might never have thought about on our own. I have been fortunate enough to see this "locking" phenomenon several times, and there is nothing to compare with the satisfaction it brings to have all questions on a subject answered and to feel as though one truly understands it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks Tom for this. IT reminded me of something I stumbled onto, long story, ended up with This and That in a relationship is Something Else. The key word is relationship. THe third side of every coin. I called it the conceptual operating principle of the Universe.
To do it, C=L(A,P) your hands. There are historical precedents to be sure, but I got a notation form based on it. In fact it is the form that is unique about my notation. You talk about going to the source, and I am talking about the form the source must take. We can use the Whole to start with, doesn't matter what we call it or what it is, just that it is whole. The question is what must happen. Well, the only thing that can happen to a whole is differentiation, it divides. This much we already know. What is new, not original, and unique is that this FIRST division is ALWAYS into two parts. It is impossible to cut a pie into three pieces with the first cut. This becomes rather obvious, but it is significant because it also establishes a process, a principle, that is followed immediately at the doorway of matter and forever after that. One could speculate that this first division was into positive and negative charges. If we add their relationships, i.e., what they are doing to eachother, so that we end up with three parts of it all, we can then reverse the process and create integration. So at the elementary level we have differentiation/integration, when "/" is a symbol for whatever it takes to do that.

So, what can I do with it? Well consider this: The Four force of Nature, the electromagnetic, the strong, the weak and Gravity have yet to be "unified". Gravity is the attraction (say) between masses - let us say atoms. It follows then that a single atom does not have gravity, that is it takes two atoms to have gravity.

The implicatons of this are rather far reaching, so it deserves a good looking at. And indeed, Marmet seems to be saying the same thing when he observes that electromagnetism was formed BEFORE gravity. I think it is fair to say that gravity is a relationship between masses after the masses came into existence. In other words, at the most extreme temperature of the beginning, when the forces are as one, there is no gravity. Nor is there any need to unify gravity with anything.